proposed by democrats and republicans. the national review senior editor will be here to look at what america's republicans can learn from canada's conservative prime minister, stephen harper. host: the u.s. capitol is the site of a meeting today with president obama and the house republican conference over the issue of fiscal matters. the meeting will take place around 1:30 this afternoon. the house budget committee meets today to consider a budget plan from chairman paul ryan released yesterday. you can tune in at 10:30 on c- span3 4 those proceedings. that budget plan was released yesterday. it aims to cut $4.60 trillion in spending over the course of 10 years.

that depends on a couple things, eliminating spending connecting to the affordable care act, and the changes to how medicare is administered. we want to get your thoughts on that plan released from paul ryan yesterday. 4.6 trillion cuts in spending over the next 10 years to achieve a balanced budget, he says. here's how you can weigh in this morning -- you can also reach out to us on social media as well. on twitter. on facebook. .r send us an e-mail a representative paul ryan has an overview of what he wants to

achieve with a spending plan released yesterday. he says -- this a couple pages to that if you want to go to the house budget committee paid to see the rest of it. reuters has a breakdown of what the budget entails. it says the latest version ends cronyism, --

senate democrats will meet later on this morning -- actually, 2:00 this afternoon, to start the process of working through their budget plan. that is scheduled to be live on c-span. i would refer you to our website, c-span.org, for more information on the hearing, when it will be airing and what channel. our first 45 minutes, we are getting a sense from you of what you think about the chairman's budget that was police yesterday. $4.60 trillion in spending tickets -- spending cuts overall. give us a call. to give us a sense of what is going on on capitol hill, over the next couple days when it comes to matters of the budget,

a staff writer for the hill is joining us. reaction from republicans on the release of the budget yesterday? and going forward, how they think it will fare not only in the house but as it goes for consideration in the senate? guest: thanks for having me,. republicans yesterday were touting their budget as a chance to outline their principles and drawing a distinction between president obama, who has yet to release its budget, and their party. they say they have put their principles on paper and this is the starting point for their negotiating process. in all likelihood, even republicans acknowledged their budget has little chance of passing in the senate. senate democrats would admit that their budget has little chance of passing in the house.

what house republicans are saying is at least we put our budget down on paper. and they say the president probably and should have done the same a couple months ago. yearsbeen more than 90 since the president's budget has trailed house budgets. host: was there any talk about it was related to the affordable care act and changing medicare and things like that? guest: we saw yesterday that paul ryan was pressed on this issue. it was a tricky moment for him in the press conference. he had to defend including some of the tax increases that have gone into it effect in recent years and explain how he would also get rid of the president's health care reform act.

he said we consider the tax increases to be federal law and that our question, it isn't the affordable care act federal law? he said, n,o this is something we want to continue fighting. democrats say that we've been through a supreme court challenge to an annual voted on this 30 times, why are we continuing to battle over something that democrats have no intention of appealing? host: the president is scheduled to release his budget a week of april 8. he is set to meet with house republicans today. give us the nature of these meetings. guest: the meeting today is the second of four meetings. it's part of his charm offensive stories trying to win over congressional support for a grand bargain. this has been an effort that

was spurred by failing in the sequester a couple weeks ago. he has almost the opposite challenge of what he did yesterday when he met with senate democrats. they were pressing him on his willingness to accept social security cuts and changes to medicare, programs. democrats are very much in opposition to that. he will face house republicans, who don't want any increase in tax revenue. yesterday he was trying to win over democrats towards a deal that would potentially touched entitlement programs. today he will face a hostile republican caucus. this is the fifth visit to them since 2009.

house republicans ran as an expert -- were antagonistic during his first term. host: how long will the meeting be and what will the format be and the agenda? guest: it will be similar to yesterday, where the president will come for lunch for about an hour-and-a-half. he will have some remarks at the top and then will take questions from house republicans. the back-and-forth is an opportunity to exchange ideas but also an opportunity for house republicans to vent frustrations. host: senate democrats meet today on their budget also? guest: yes, senate democrats have an opportunity like republicans did yesterday to tell their vision. they have put forward a package that includes $1 trillion in new tax increases, but they say it

protects vital entitlement programs for the poor people and elderly, which the ryan budget would cut those big government programs. host: justin sink. this story today talk about the meeting with senate democrats and the meeting with house republicans scheduled today around 1:30. banks for your time. guest: banks for having eight. host: for the remainder of our time in this first segment, your thoughts on the release of the budget from the house budget committee. 4.6 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. here's how you can give your thoughts -- the first call from antioch, california, independent line, eric. caller: the budget that ryan put

forward is a nonstarter. obamacare will not be rescinded. it is not really serious. i did like what i saw from senator mitch mcconnell, his attitude about working with the president, considering he spent a full your years doing everything he could to stop the president's election. his demeanor and the way he spoke, suggested possibilities. host: what compromises need to be made? caller: we have to come to a deal when it comes to entitlements. we don't have to balance the deficit, we have to control it. entitlements coming up will be the thing to eat up the entire budget, so it has to be dealt with. host: some talk yesterday about a voucher system when it comes to some entitlement programs, some talk about changing the age. do you support either of

those approaches when it comes to entitlements? caller: when it comes to medicare and social security, raising a a h is reasonable especially when you consider when the programs were formed, what the life expectancy is were versus now. you basically have to make it so the programs don't go bankrupt. whatever adjustments have to be made, i hope -- like i don't favor at the chained way of doing the cost of living adjustment. host: that was eric from california on our independent line. on twitter -- we go to gonzales, louisiana, republican line, bill. caller: i would like to say

that i voted for romney, as a republican. the president just got elected. the republicans really should try to bend a little and work with him a little more. they are being a little stubborn with their opinions of the issues. i wish, as the republicans did with ronald reagan -- i mean as the democrats did with ronald reagan, they should try to work with them a little more than they have. host: what the you think about the proposals released in this budget where some democrats said these were things that we looked for during the campaign, these proposals? caller: it doylestown to the same thing. -- it boils down to the same thing. they should get all the issues on the table and work together better. they should try to work with each other rather than against each other and not take a hard stance in disagreement.

they should try to come together and meet in the middle and try to get something done. this has gone on too long and nothing is getting done. the republicans should bend a little more than the president. the president just got elected. he should have a little bit more leeway in his ideas. host: proposed 4.6 trillion in cuts and spending over 10 years, backs the plan police yesterday. on twitter -- looking for to future elections there. in rockville, maryland, democrat. caller: i don't see how you can balance a budget in 10 years

after decades of ways of spending of taxpayers' money in the united states. the president and the republican party are just as equally at fault for this mess. no more taxes. we cannot take it in a bad economy. who knows what corn to happen in budgetary fluctuations between today and 10 years from today? entitlements is a very nasty way of saying we have to take something you ever earned and take it back because we cannot decide what to do with your money in the first place. i think the president is wrong. i am a democrat, but i don't support his ideas. tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend. the ryan budget is thdoa. this is too much, too late. who knows what is going to happen between today and 10 years from today? hopefully, i will be alive to

get what i earned. i would rather be in my > to continue seeing this misery that the u.s. congress and this president and his health care act needs to be a pair back. it's not going to work. host: david on our independent line from mclean, virginia. caller: i have some questions. it's your guests along the line? host: we're just taking calls right now. our first guest is about a half- hour. caller: one, we would like to get clarification on the senate's passing the budget through an act of reconciliation. i believe it can be done. two, if you could have a guest

on that could explain what loophole is the democrats were trying to close in order to raise more revenue? these are loopholes for very wealthy billionaires' where they get tax cuts for having airplanes and for having private jets and multiple. multiple these are loopholes that 95% of americans don't use. why should a very wealthy person claimed five houses? it is insane. to say that the paul ryan budget is balanced is absolutely false. it is completely one-sided. like the old adage goes, don't tell me what you are for, but show me on paper what you are willing to do. their budget shows exactly where their intentions lie. host: chairman ryan met with reporters yesterday on capitol hill to talk about details from

his budget and to lay out its proposals. [video clip] >> this is not only a responsible, reasonable, balanced plan, it's also an invitation. this is an invitation to the president of the united states, to the senate democrats to come together to fix these problems. we don't think it's terrible to let critical programs like medicare go bankrupt. it's not fair to take more from our working families to spend more in washington. the most important question is not how we balance the budget by why. our budget is a means to an end, an end is the well-being of the american people. an end is a growing economy that has our opportunity and affordability. a balanced budget will help provide the kind of economic security we need for families. it will not secure retirement for our seniors. it will not expand opportunity for young people having a hard time finding careers and jobs in the stagnant economy. host: the u.s. capitol later this afternoon, the president will meet with the house

republican conference to talk over the budget that was released from republicans yesterday. you just heard chairman bryan talk about it. the proposals include 4.6 trillion in spending over 10 years. and about a half-hour before we have our guest, we will get your thoughts on it, the proposals laid out yesterday, what you think about them. about 120 people so far putting comments on facebook. you are welcome to do so as well. the conversation take place on its own on that page.

on our republican line in missouri. caller: i am republican and i think brian is doing a great job -- ryan. i want to know about his plan, what is the voucher program all but oabout. there were food stamps years ago when i was about that age. what is this new voucher plan that he's talking about? host: let me ask why you are concerned about. caller: i'm a senior citizen and a veteran. it seems like veterans are not getting what they need to have. i am on a voucher program at age 66 now.

is it only going to give me so much money, social security? i don't know what they are talking about, the voucher plan. i don't believe democrats could say that he's pushing grandma over the cliff. i don't know what they are talking about. host: milton from new jersey, a democrat. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i was listening to the call that was before the call from missouri, the one from virginia. he said all the stuff i wanted to say. and the caller that just call from missouri makes the point for me, too. with regard to the voucher -- rather the program of paul ryan, with regard to entitlements, both of the gentleman who spoke before me make it clear. there needs to be entitlement reform. i am completely in agreement with paul ryan on that. it sounds crazy with my being a

democrat. these oil companies are entitled to billions of dollars toward oil and gas production. these multimillion-dollar farm corporations are entitled to all this money from a farm aid. and essentially written people are entitled to a mohomes and j. entitlement is a good thing, but it has to be for everybody. -- these entitlements are for the rich people. you have to get rid of all the nonsense. host: what would entitle and reform look like to you when it comes to programs that directly deal with social programs? caller: what you just made my point, reform cannot be just social programs. entitlement reform has to be what everybody is entitled to. let's take brian lamb, your

boss. i love him so much on sunday nights. he, probably as the head of your company, c-span, he is entitled to certain things, and he probably deserves them. but there are a lot of people in the u.s. entitled to a bunch of stuff. i think that they can make entitlement programs not just about social programs. you have to change entitlements for big oil, to farm aid and all the other nonsense on the backs of the small people. host: would retain eligibility for social security or medicare? caller: i would be willing to do entitlement reform for everybody and on every level. but you cannot leave out the top. intel better form is a good thing, but they are only doing it for the bottom people.

entitlement reform is a good paint. g.- good thin host: the president did an interview with abc news on the topic of several things including the budget. his reaction to the budget plan released yesterday. [video clip] >> paul ryan said he's challenging you to come fort with a budget that reaches balance. >> balancing the budget depends on how fast you grow, in part. you remember from the clinton administration. unbalanced because of tax hikes, spending cuts, and the economy grew. my goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. my goal is how do we grow the

economy, put people back to work, and if we do that, we will be bringing in more revenue. if we have control spending and we have a smart entitlement package. then potentially you have a balance, balance on the backs of the poor, the elderly, students who need student loans, families with disabled children. that's not the right way to balance the budget. host: that was an interview conducted yesterday. the washington post has a story taking a look at not only the plan that was released yesterday but it also takes a look at how polling affect these discussions.

your thoughts on the budget plan that was released yesterday from the house budget committee? this is richard in philadelphia, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: thanks for letting me share my thoughts. i agree with the president from the perspective of growth. i would like to know what the assumptions are in paul ryan's plan about the growth. i would also like to know how they are considering health care increases that are going to occur. it seems the whole thing of dealing with entitlements for medicare and medicaid is because of the cost of health care. if health care costs keep increasing, that means it affects the budget.

thing, the american system always has booms and bust and how it affects the citizenry. this discussion really goes off what is it the future looks ligh -- like as they create may be the fourth new industrial society, as far as how people are going to live, with its point across to live, and what kind of services are going to be provided. that is what this discussion is about. i don't think these political interest fights are really giving us enough giving us what is being constructed. all we see is what is.

-- what is being presented. >> on twitter -- richard on our republican line from north carolina. caller: good morning. this is all a bunch of smoke screens. what the president is putting up and what paul ryan is putting up. they are still going to be spending 2.3% more next year and the following year for the next 10 years, so how are you? going to reduce you? i'm going to spend $3 instead of $5. it's like the unemployment rate. the real unemployment rate is 14%. you don't county because i am sitting home not looking for job anymore. you can be because i am out looking for jobs. they are spending money on robotics.

they just spent $1 million, gave a college $1.5 million to study why lesbians are fatter than gat -- gay men. give me a break. this is what is bankrupting us. host: that was richard from north carolina. if you are interested in the details of how the budget things get resolved, a clock 30 this morning on c-span3, the house budget committee, it will be their markup of the proposal released yesterday. -- at 10:30. you can watch live it 10:30 on c-span3. and you can watch on c-span.org. this afternoon at the senate will do the same as far as

marking up their proposal. that's at 2:00 this afternoon. go-to guy c-span.org for more information. when it comes to senate democrats, they released a blueprint of their plan yesterday. it's highlighted in the washington post. bill from junction city, wisconsin, democrat. caller: thank you for your

information, c-span3 now but the baby boomers are coming i don't know how many millions of day retiring, now it's crunch time. i think the republicans don't have insight -- they have robbed social security since lyndon johnson for different programs they did not need. now it's crunch time. now we are going to pay for it in the middle class and the elderly. i believe that there are other choices to be made there. entitlements for the big oil companies who make way too much money off the public on gas money. host: the president said entitlement programs to people deserve some consideration as well. he told senate democrats yesterday the same thing. what do you think when the

president makes those kind of statements? caller: as long as he is not like a rabbit that is chasing a carrot. you have to take a good look at what they are up to. as far as paul ryan, i don't have faith in the man. he does not give a hoot about the people in the middle class or the elderly or poor or the veterans. i don't think he has the best interest of this country. host: we'll hear from a representative from wisconsin at 8:30, representative gwen moore will join us for discussion on the budget. and the republican from louisiana, bill cassidy, a member of the energy and commerce committee will talk about this. you can share your thoughts on the phone, on twitter, and on facebook. roberts in clinton, maryland, thanks for holding on the

republican line. caller: i'm a former democrat, african american, who switched to the republican party because i got sick and tired of all the abuses the democrat party is forcing on our society, whether it's turning us away from god, forcing us to pay for health care against our will. i'm hearing a lot of callers today and saturday as saying the president won the election. so did paul ryan and the republicans. the majority of the republicans won the house of representatives. it is the house that is the only body that is representative of the people as a whole. they have a voice and they define what the budget is. so i am tentatively supportive of paul ryan. i recognize that he is also for big government and does not understand the constitution

limits the government, specifically james mattis and was clear that general welfare applies to the enumerated powers in article one, section 8. by including plans for health care, they're going in the wrong way. i appreciate that paul ryan at least wants to get rid of obamacare. it must be repealed so. we can stand prior so we have a president who assassinates american citizens and wants to force us to buy and sell insurance. that is slavery. host: by putting health care into the budget bill, what about its workability? caller: unfortunately, because the american people have bought into this idea of the general welfare going back to the days of fdr means anything but anybody can define is good for the people, which the founding fathers -- you are not going to be able to get the marriage

guardian of americans to go along with something that does not provide for health care. -- the majority of americans. you would be balancing the budget on the backs of the disabled, they use all that bleeding heart rhetoric to convince you its actually a good to rob one group of people to give to their bodies and their corporate donors and others. it's not right and its loss- making our political system corrupt. until the american people stand up and demand a government that represents not only what we tell it to do in our constitution but represents our states specifically, we are not going to have a free government, which is what we should have in america. host: the viewer brought up the house budget plan, how it includes the affordable care act and how it includes the budget

making process. sears chairman paul ryan from yesterday talking about repealing "the affordable care act. [video clip] >> we believe that obamacare is going to be so unpopular in this country, because of all the broken promises that it will prove. remember the president said if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? americans will find out that's not the case. he said ebbetts pass obamacare, it will lower health care prices? it has been going up since it passed. remember when he said he would do it out in the open? it was a back room deal. look at all the things providers will experience. you'll see substandard health care. you will see young people not wanting to go into the field of health care because of obamacare. so we believe that in the interest of health care for seniors and health care for families and in the interest of making medicaid work better for low-income people, we need to repeal and replace obamacare with a better system, with a patient-centered system. host: a couple more stories to

share with you. this is from the terrible news radio talk about furloughs at the department of defense scheduled to take place starting in april, april 26. also, there's a story in the wall street journal and others taking a look at reports from the inspector general of the justice department. the report criticizes a unit of the justice department, saying problems with unprofessional

conduct in the department's voting section that erupted during the george bush administration -- speaking of thomas progress, but president's popular at -- possible selection for labor secretary, there's a picture of him standing by attorney general eric holder. that's the wall street journal. dan in detroit michigan, independent line. caller: hello.

these two parties have both been derelict in their duties, something going on a long time. host: what do you think about yesterday? caller: i'm watching paul ryan now. he sounds pretty good on tv, but i think a lot of it is grandstanding. they knew this problem was going on a long time. i say bring our troops home. these two parts will destroy this great nation. host: next, we learn, pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: representative ryan's spending budget is terrible, because social security as a medic to do with the deficit, so why mess with social security? we learned that money. i'm 34 years old and wonder if it will be there. host: there are papers talking about this today. caller: they should not do

anything to entitlements. every time you cash your check, medicare, social security, all that stuff comes out. so i don't understand where they get the right to take from it. host: you may have heard from the previous caller, but even the president has said in a towel and reforms are something that should be considered and the house and senate as well. caller: i think they are wrong. we pay our taxes for them. that's what we pay for every time we cast our tax. now they are trying to take theirs back. host: the topic of recess appointments in the paper this morning, specifically when it comes to the national labor relations board. a story in the new york times this morning by charlie savage says --

abraham in east hartford, connecticut, good morning, on the republican line. caller: i like ryan, but [indiscernible] lost the election to the democrats. it seems ok in that it's going to repeal obamacare. why is he keeping the part of obamacare? i don't have health insurance. i don't want to lose student benefits. this is the policy they ran on and lost the election to the democrats. if they want people to come on board, they have to stop serving only the rich people. we poor minorities equal work

for the party. [indiscernible] i am a republican, but the democrats continue winning my favor and other minority people. ryan is very wrong. if you want a a balanced approach, you cannot do it on the backs of poor people. we have to keep an eye on people who cannot fend for themselves. host: there was a senate judiciary meeting yesterday to talk about a gun control bill. two of them being considered yesterday, and one of them being

considered today. the committee approved a bill for background checks and purchases, but they proposed -- good morning to bethlehem, pennsylvania, democrat, dale. caller: the stock market and

they have all kinds of tax loopholes on wall street. [indiscernible] reworking the entitlements does not mean we have to cut them. they could raise the social security taxes, which should have been done a long time ago. i agree with the governor of louisiana, bobby jindal. the deficit has been decreasing every year since obama has been in office. lies spread by fox news are outrageous. the national debt has other things that raise it, like military costs under president bush. and infrastructure costs.

the deficit has been decreasing every year since president obama got in there. these people have to take a closer look. government reports show the deficit is in decline. put people to work so they pay taxes. host: what is the government's role? caller: when we had the big storm, the republicans in the house held up the money 90 days. the statue of liberty is still closed and cannot bring in any revenue because of the damage. all the poor people in new jersey, many of them are still sleeping in their cars. it is hepatic what has happened down there. republicans have no heart that they accept money every time

they have a storm, there's a storm in the north, they squeeze you for every penny. these people are doing more damage than anyone in this country in history. host: the president is meeting with house republicans today at 1:30. tonight he will meet with the group known as organizing for action. "politico" has the story --

you can see that event. go to our website, c-span.org, for more. the executive director of that group has an op-ed response, an opposing view response in "usa today." you can read more in "usa

today." ron from uniontown, ohio, republican. caller: good morning. i would like to make a statement. paul ryan is doing more harm to our republican party than good. i don't think he listened to the 2012 election results. if they are really serious about doing some things, they have to start to work together. our republican party will fall apart. host: you say he did not listen to the results of the election. are you referring to what came out in the budget yesterday? caller: i'm referring to the election of the president. people overwhelmingly did not vote in favor of his plan for budget cuts in the medicaid and medicare and obamacare. they've got to work together to come up with something rather than keep throwing the same thing out there. host: go-ahead.

caller: the other thing, if both parties are interested in solving a problem, maybe they should give up their hospitalization and retirement and go with what everybody else is getting. they've done a nice job of building themselves a great retirement system and hospitalization. even with obamacare, they have said that does not apply to them. host: that will be the last call on that topic. coming up, the first of two legislators this morning to talk about the release of the house budget yesterday. the first guest is representative bill cassidy from louisiana. he will discuss details and today's hearing the looks at jobs being affected possibly under the affordable care act. later, representative gwen moore of wisconsin, a democrat, on reaction to the rhine budget and what democrats want in budget negotiations. we will have those topics as washington journal continues. >> ♪

[video clip] >> i think for dolly madison, but she is offered us is a model for government that stresses civility and deputy. she was modeling this for us. we look to our founding generations because we need examples for role models. her way of conducting politics, stressing building bridges is a model that she has bequeathed us and one we can use for the future. >> our conversation with historians on dolly madison is available on our web site, c- span.org.

>> the public is not paying as much attention as i am and you are and those of us who are part of the political community. there's the political community, which is about 10 million people. it is the people that watch c- span and they watch meet the press and they watch fox news and msnb, to a lesser extent cnn, but they really care about politics a lot. we had 120 million or 130 million voters. most people just get a lot of what goes on in politics is background noise. the background noise comes pretty much from the mainstream media and people forming an opinion on mitt romney and obama and so on. fox news does not reach most of those people.

it gets great ratings and has a loyal audience, but look at the show gets 3y, is million people per night and it's the most popular. that is not the electorate. we have a big country. the conservative media only reaches a tiny part of it. >> more with the political commentator fred barnes sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us right now, representative bill cassidy, a republican from louisiana, member of the energy and commerce committee. welcome. guest: thanks for having me. host: a couple of the editorials talk about the release of the budget yesterday, spoke about a variety of things, but the washington post had the headline --

what do you think when you hear the term unrealistic? guest: when they say unrealistic, they mean the repeal of obamacare. host: correct. guest: president obama's erskine bowles bipartisan dead commission identified health care spending as a major driver of unsustainable debt. if what paul ryan is attempting to do is to highlight that and say we cannot sustain this, this is the president's bipartisan commission that's a bad, that would be a service. maybe the president will say we are still going to spend the money, in which case it is unrealistic. if people say it this is unsustainable, according to the president's people, and maybe that will force a re-evaluation, that would be a positive thing. host: it is still part of the mathematics of the budget. guest: >> yes. but medicaid expansion, a lot of room for savings. we would hope that it's not

quite as unrealistic as people make it out to be. host: doing this over 10 years, is that realistic? common budgeta window. that's just a convention among people here in washington. cbo score is an over 10 years. whether it's realistic or not, the accounting is done. host: from what you read so far the budget and what you've seen, what do you like and what are you concerned about? guest: the president's bipartisan did commission said we have an unsustainable debt. medicare's going bankrupt. social security is going bankrupt. i will be treating patients might this morning in a hospital. pi understand the importance of safety net programs being preserved. benefits will decline for those currently on the program if nothing is done. what i like is it addresses it and will hopefully force a national conversation so they don't just play out by inertia.

host: what is being proposed for the safety net programs? guest: medicare, with president under obamacare would take 706 $16 billion and suspended elsewhere. under the ryan budget, the $716 billion dollars is put back into medicare. the program is scheduled to go bankrupt 15 years from now. so that would preserve the life of medicare as we know it. that's a good thing. host: as far as the idea of being a voucher system? guest: that is the president's lingo. if you are speaking about the bipartisan plan to save medicare, which was originally conceived by a moderate democrat senator from louisiana along with another moderate from nebraska, which now liberal from oregon and paul ryan have endorsed, a premium support plan

much like medicare part d that the president demagogues, that's a good plan. that is a plan that will preserve seniors' choice and preserve medicare as opposed to just letting it go bankrupt. part of that plan would allow someone to continue to opt for traditional medicare. so the president demagogues it by calling it a voucher program. he should also call medicare part d about a juror, because it is patterned after medicare part d. host: our guest is joining us until 8:30 to talk about the release of the budget and other related issues. if you want to ask questions, you can do so on three lines. give us a call. you can also send us a tweet or an e-mail. what are you looking for to hearing from the president today? guest: he's coming to speak to

house republicans. obviously, he's doing his charm offensive. i would say that he sees the american people to think that he's being too partisan. let's hope that he's actually come in with something which will begin to address the fact it medicare's going bankrupt and that his programs make it worse and we it. to address that will take a bipartisan effort. i would like to think that he is sincere in coming and that he will have proposals to preserve these programs as republicans have been advocating for, as opposed to letting them go bankrupt. host: what would you ask him if you had a chance to talk about it during the meeting today? guest: i will say that your own bipartisan that commission has said that our present deficit is unsustainable and these important safety net programs under your plans are going bankrupt. what actual plan would you

propose to preserve and strengthen medicare? that is one time about. monday morning, i will be seeing patients in a safety net hospital. i'm aware of the importance of. these of if we let them collapse, my patients will not be served. what is your specific plan to do this? we have been waiting about six years to see that. host: how does the meeting work? guest: you probably know as much as me. we will come in 15 minutes earlier than normal to make sure secret service has a chance to look at us. he will sweep in and make statements and then take questions, a standard format. host: how long is the meaning? guest: an hour. host: our guest is with us to doubt about topics related to the budget and related bill cassidy issues bill, a member of the energy and commerce committee, from louisiana. minnesota, independent line, jeff. caller: thank you.

i want to make a couple comments and questions. the first comment is the reason ryan is wanting to repeal obamacare is to let republicans know where they stand and let people know that we think obamacare is going to break the country down the road. it is that simple. the other comment i want to make and i keep hearing on c-span, i watched every morning and i'd think you guys do a great service, but i want to make the point that the democrats keep democrats keep john boehner -- they keep talking about john boehner, saying he wanted to close all the loopholes last year, but now they don't understand why,. he wanted to close them in lieu of closing the taxes.

i am an independent and i devoted both ways. but the republicans have to get their act together. otherwise the democrats will run you down. guest: i think he has a good point. i heard a presentation that when the president is on his game he cannot be out communicated. maybe the president has miscommunicated. i agree with that. health care is very important. we have unemployment 7.7% and a decrease in the number of full- time jobs and an increase of the

number of people working part- time. the president has managed to have that glossed over by people in that media. we have to do a better job. host: this is from amy on twitter. guest: i understand you have to align incentives to lower costs no matter what your market is. there was a report five years ago about controlling costs in health care. lower administrative costs. i would suggest we push price transparency. lower administrative costs.

and that we align incentives. we can lower costs. there are better ways to do that. those are the things we must do. host: better ways such as? guest: someone finds out they are a member of an organization after two years. 26% of medicare patients dr. shop. let's assume they see multiple people. all that costs will be attributed to the primary care doctor that should be responsible for that person's care. that is a crazy way to do it.

you are my doctor and i am going to see you. then you have a relationship between patient and doctor. both are invested. host: mina on a republican line from virginia. caller: i happen to be a health- care worker for the past 10 or 12 years. i can see the negative defects that obamacare it is causing now. i see the effect it is done to my own hours i have been working. the hospitals across the region are making cuts in the number of hours and to save money in fear of the effect of the obamacare

plans. i do not think talking to doctors and co-workers there would be anything good coming at of this. i do agree with insuring people with pre-existing conditions and putting limits on health insurance companies the money they give to people. is the think the plan way to fix the problems in health care. i do not think that the president in his second term will change his ways. host: thank you, caller. guest: a connection between jobs and the health-care

program. there is a negative effect. if a small business has 49 employees, they do not pay any penalties. if there are 50 or more, they will pay a penalty. that means hiring one more person would trigger a penalty of $40,000. that sounds like rhetoric. no, it is true. that will trigger a penalty of $40,000 for that 50th employee. small businesses hire most americans. microsoft started off with 12 employees.

if you put a cap on that -- the productivity of the 50th employee -- you are capping the number of employees a small business would have. they will tell you, i am staying at 49. this caller makes that connection between the lot and the negative effect upon job growth, which is absolutely true. i will stay at 49 employees. microsoft would not have stayed as microsoft'. host: the impact of the affordable care act. what are the conclusions?

guest: they look at the cost of the coverage and not overall employment. they went to the imagination -- machination. that is not where job growth is. they stay away from the negative impact of going from 49 to 50 employees. in terms of job growth, they do not touch it. that is a clear negative effect of obamacare. i can understand. somebody would say the president has are begun reelected. this is something now being seen.

there was a decrease in full- time employment by 212,000 workers. an increase of 370,000. number of people working full time when down. if the purpose of obamacare was to get people benefits, it hurts the ability of these folks to get benefits. i think that needs to be heard. host: here is ray rahm washington on the democrat's line. caller: why is it that all the other industrialized countries in the world to give their citizens health-care.

we did not get it here. it is time we get it here. why do you gop people keep making more distractions after distractions instead of dealing with what needs to be done in this country? thank you. guest: what needs to be done is an all-out effort to improve job creation. for folks that may have a good high school diploma that did not have college. that is where there's a problem. it is already hurting employment for this group. 25% unemployment. i am not supposed to look at job creation? full-time unemployment just went

2,000.y 21 12,00 i'm not going to give that up. worldwide other countries have health care laws that cover most people. i applaud that. i think there are ways to get there that did not put our debt on an unsustainable place better taxpayer cannot afford. this is not about next year. this is about five or 10 years from now. we need to address that. host: here is another point from the urban institute.

guest: that is an interesting article. it says we are crushing small businesses by increasing health care costs and that we have an unsustainable debt. it will increase employment of people in the health-care sector. it is kind of the negative circular logic. this is the problem but isn't a great? you cannot have it both ways. the caller connected jobs and health care spending. urban got it half right.

we need to lower health-care costs in a way that enhances jobs in the non-health care sector. host: our guest is representative bill cassidy from louisiana. this is day from pennsylvania -- dave. caller: this is the age of the computer and the internet. $800 billion national debt when reagan was in office. russia does not lead oil companies control their natural resources. they provide health care and everything for their people. what do we do? what is killing this country is

the high cost of medical. given big contracts -- host: are you still there? caller: i am still here. guest: you do not want to get your health care in russia. we are glad we have multinationals here. the average person will live a less in five years than the average person lives now in russia. you did not want to go there. health insurance plans run by big business typically have lower cost increases than those run by the federal government. there is a response to the market that makes things happier for the employee.

a woman that works with me. her husband worked with exxonmobil. they are paying $4,000 a year. exxonmobil is a major employer in my district. there at of pocket cost will go up to up10,00$10,000. we as taxpayers will beyond hook for the rest of the plan. be under medicare which is an important program. their costs will go from $4,000 to $10,000. medicare is scheduled to go

bankrupt. i would argue for the free market here. host: letting them decide how to use those funds? guest: it is still a contract between the american person who has paid into the medicare program and will at some point begin to draw down benefits. republicans say do not let it go bankrupt. this isn't children and grandchildren. this is pedro and bill. these are our siblings and spouses. now let's talk about making it a block grant. host: sue on the republican

line. caller: good morning. how many waivers have been given to the affordable care act? it is our experience with government-run health care. we were in england and we ended up in london. my husband had a pain in his back. by the time it got to london, it was unbearable. we went to a hospital in london. you would not believe. there were two three guys booth.age the place was filthy dirty.

there was a drunk on the floor with a duffel bag. he was pulling and the liquor bottles at of that. the bathrooms were locked. there was one woman next to us. we sat there and sat there and sat there for hours. we finally decided to leave. we came to wisconsin. wonderful health care. he had a cancerous tumor on his bladder. it was outpatient surgery and he is fine. you compare that with what we are going to have. until we get rid of obamacare, we will not have the care that we have all enjoyed through the years. guest: i cannot tell you the

number of waivers given out by the president's administration but there have been a lot. a lot went to people in favor of obamacare. labor unions would get waivers. the ability to have labor is hurt by this law. i would say politicians overpromise and under fund. there's a perception that everybody would have everything and edit lower-cost. if a patient has the power and if she could say i'm going someplace else, new line the incentive to make the organization work on behalf of that patients.

when the bureaucrat has the power, you're sitting next to a drunk with people inconsiderate of your time. my fear is the same of yours. host: richard from florida. caller: good morning. i am a small businessman. we have been suffering under obama for the past five years. my company when from 50 employees to just under 18. the insurance is buckling the company. he said our insurance bill will go from $7,000 to $20,000 in five years. this will put us out of business.

we figured we would sit down and talk in the most sensible thing was going from 18 employees down to 10 full-time -- eight full- time, two part-time. competition between states for insurance. local doctors are paying roughly $250,000 liability insurance. host: what is your business? will it is tourist related. we have a store and a campground. host: thank you. guest: i think he makes a good

connection. if you're a ph.d. in civil engineering, you have a job. he is decreasing the number of full-time employees. low-skilled workers are the ones for whom there is the most elastic demand. if your cost of hiring goes up, there are fewer low-skilled workers employed. this reflects the trend -- we had a decrease in the number of full-time jobs and increase in the number of part-time. it is easy to say this is related to escaping the provisions of obamacare that penalize employers if they are

over 50. and so theerception states pulldown federal dollars and there'll be no consequence for the state. that is not true. the money has to come from somewhere. it will be a good deal if you're in office for the next three or four years. if president obama commission says medicaid is one thing that is driving our unsustainable debt, then if more money is going into medicate, there will be less money going into roads and highways and into education. the federal budget will be cannibalize in order to pay for these short-term benefits.

if i was the government, i could see why they are doing it. our governor decided not to take the expansion. the louisiana will have to pay $1.8 billion over the next 10 years to implement the so-called free money. these are the folks that are all in for obamacare. $1.8 billion over 10 years. host: the senate side had a chance to respond and we have some from senator reid on the proposal. [video clip] >> paul ryan will unveil an extreme budget and it is anything but balanced. it reflects the same skewed priorities

americans rejected in november. the budget will cause more tax breaks for the wealthy and draconian cuts to education and other programs. guest: same skewed priorities, to make our debt so that it is sustainable. something that will bankrupt our immediate future. i think that gives a sense of mr. reid's priority. host: this is jon in kansas. good morning. you are on, sir. caller: i have been a republican since i can remember. instead of doing a wholesale repeal, why isn't there

legislation to do work around like tax incentives for companies giving insurance and things like that instead of repealing it? guest: i think you make a great point. my office has a bill that would take medicaid and not block grant it cannot maintain the status quo. i do think the president got reelected and will veto any attempt to wholesale changes. i think we have to go back and except that but make it so it doesn't bankrupt us and doesn't bankrupt employers. host: beverly from north carolina, good morning.

caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the medical problem but i will stick to this -- the united states has run a deficit the wrath the history and has gone so bad that it is like a cancer that will destroy this country. that is not true. voters are all for balanced budgets but they have no taste for an agenda that benefits billionaires and burdens our working families. these tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy just has to go. you are a doctor. you are going to tell me you like medicare? not true.

not true. medicare looks that a bill thoroughly. if your bill is for $800, will cut it down to maybe $500. then they will pay perhaps 80% of the $500 that was claimed. you do not like that. guest: i worked in a hospital for the uninsured. there is a little bit of an attack there. i am trying to get health care for those with minimal coverage. according to independent estimates, about 10%-20% of what

they pay out goes to fraudulent claims. about the national deficit, it is the president's bipartisan debt commission that says this. i think you have an issue with them. about taxes, since president obama has been elected, there has been an increase of about $1.4 trillion in taxes the with the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. if taxing people more were the answer, we would not have debts.ainable tha i think we disagree on an array of issues.

host: what you think about congressman ryan's tax rate proposal? guest: the cbo and erskine bowles have suggested a flattening of the tax rolls and implementation of deductions. both erskine bowles and cbo would recommend things along those lines. host: what deductions which to eliminate? guest: i have not read his. if you limit more rigid and health care and charitable that which they gave over the limit would be subject to a marginal tax rate.

bill gates gave $20 million to the gates foundation -- $20 billion. he did not pay taxes on that money. pick a large sum. he would've paid a tax rate on the remainder of the money he gave. if you are going after -- one way would be to limit the deductions you can take on charitable contributions and i think that limit beverly happy. caller: first-time caller. at the end of world war ii, we were instrumental in writing the

constitution for germany and japan. health care was written into their constitutions. i do not see why we cannot do that for our country. we do more for other countries than we do for ourselves. i could go on but that is the statement i want to make. guest: i'm all about everybody having coverage. the better way is through good jobs with good benefits as opposed to being put on medicaid. itey were taken income h after they go off medicaid. there are ways to do that hurt job growth. look at the federal reserve report.

employers are not adding people because of the uncertainty regarding the health care provision. you can improve job growth and along with better jobs are better benefits. i think this is the better way to go. i'm not sure we disagree. host: david from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i am in massachusetts. i have had to use the health- care system. the difference between romneycare and obamacare is you're still able to keep your health care plan unless you fall into hard times, and then the romneycare will kick in.

if our government ran so much more -- they just waste so much money and frivolously. they need to clean up. my wife is brazilian. i have gone to brazil and seen their health care system. it is very good in an emergency. it is still affordable. they can pay it out of their pockets. or take a small loan. there are 3 million less jobs in the country even though there are more people here. the lowest skilled people are losing their assets and end up

on the romneycare system. that is worthy cycle is not working. you have last taxpayers. guest: great to hear from any republican in massachusetts. the massachusetts health plan put in by governor romney is a forerunner of obamacare. we can look at that and see what has happened. the highest costs in the nation for small businesses to employ their workers. their medicare costs is the second or third highest. they are one of the highest in the nation for medicaid cost. they started with an uninsured

rate of 10% which they lowered to 4%. they lost population and a congressman. they now have the highest costs for small businesses to create jobs. they have the highest burden upon the state taxpayer. this is the plan we are taking across the rest of the nation. host: william joining us from louisiana -- from missouri. caller: you mentioned the fraud. what is being done? if there is 10% fraud in medicare, is an that bilking the

system? guest: were you through? if you go to south florida, they will get the id number of it medicare beneficiary. the folks leave and go to the caribbean. they are contracting with the private sector. the option would be if the government took over all of health care. if you do that, you'll end up with what the woman from wisconsin spoke of. bureaucrats' control of your care. one more thing to point out. there was an article in "the new

yorker" speaking about medicare overpayments. medicare paid 180% for the same sort of patient than they did in el paso. that was a bad thing. lacrosse and blue shield paid 7% less in one area than in all pass so. medicare pays more. blue cross, blue shield paid 7% last. ess. it begs the question, why? i would argue the private sector has put in systems that the cms needs to imitate. host: jt from iowa.

go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. as with other major issues like gun control, i have notice thursday propensity for media personalities to tend to mix apples and oranges a bit. every time there is a comparison between the united states, its strong between some european country with socialized medicine or parliament and laws. my statement further is this. that comparison is definitely a false comparison insofar as there being the population difference between the united states and germany.

we'll take their largest economy in the e.u. it is not geographically comparable with input, output, throughput. it is disingenuous for them to make such comparisons. our health care verses germany's health care. try to get things done as far as any thing dealing with paperwork and getting any patient in. host: what is your question or comment for the guest? caller: why is it such allowances are made? i heard it on congressional televised events where these are compared so directly.

taking the united states and the entire european union as a whole. guest: we can see the eu has a hard time with job growth. they have and expensive social welfare program of which health care is part of the. that is seen as a bloc to greater economic growth. germany is reportedly going to more liberalization. they are trying to decrease costs by shutting out authority away from the central government. those who wish to imitate germany -- they are trying to decrease their cost.

a fair point of the critics is that we spend more per capita than do european countries. that is a fair statement. things such as price transparency. if a consumer knew how much they would have to pay and she could comparison shop, she would go to the place with the best quality and lowest cost. the cash price of day ct scan. it varied -- consumer would never know that. she's needs -- she needs to. "open mri, $300" on a billboard. to me, that is nirvana.

there are better ways to lower costs. host: representative bill cassidy talking about the release of the budget yesterday from house republicans. thank you for your time. gwen moore, we will have her thoughts next. later on, jay nordlinger. connections he makes with the united states. those discussions as "washington journal" continues. [video clip]

>> george washington enjoyed a long, 50-year relationship with alexandria. from the time alexandria was founded in 1749, when he was 17, until he died in 1799 at the age of 67. he participated in the political life of the city. he was a trustee of alexandria. he was a justice of the peace of fairfax county. he represented alexandria in the virginia legislature. even when he was president, he made sure that when they chose this area to be the new site of the nation's capital that alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. we're in the ballroom of gadsby's tavern. george washington loved to dance. all the ladies really wanted to dance with him. to dance with the most famous person in the united states was a big thrill. they had birthday balls here for george washington in 1798 and 1799. martha came here for birthday balls.

he died in 1799. they had birthday balls for him ever year since then, except they didn't have one in 1800 because that was too close to his death. they didn't have them during world war ii. today alexandria's main street is named after washington. the george washington national masonic memorial towers over the city. alexandria has the largest george washington birthday parade in the nation. alexandrians like to say that this is george washington's home town. >> next weekend, more from alexandria, virginia, as "book tv," "american history tv," and c-span's local content vehicles look behind the scenes of the history and literary life of alexandria, virginia, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv," and sunday at 5:00 on "american history tv" on c- span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is representative gwen moore.

give us your assessment of yesterday's budget. guest: the last two budget chairman ryan has proposed. the thing that is disappointing is that it is -- not a policy statement of principles. it sets up children, the elderly, the middle class, kids who need a college education as a strong man -- straw man that he estimate teardown. it is a statement that nothing counts except for budget deficits. there is some -- there is an illusion there is some -- there's not one bit of

investment. it cuts back on any kind of innovation and research. it is a no-growth policy statement. economists see it as reducing gdp instead of a projected 4% growth that we're on the path to right now. it is disappointing. do like my chairman, paul ryan. he sees this as his firmest offer. if they go into it conference committee, he can work from that point. there is a lot of negotiation that has to be done. host: where acustar? -- where it

do you start? guest: we need a job growth package. all policy alternatives are not the same. the senate democrats have $100 billion infrastructure investment. that will create jobs and spawn economic activity. it helps everybody. road builders, the diner on the side of the road where workers neeat. there has to be some growth. the ryan budget projected 2 million jobs lost in this budget. chairman ryan talks about

continuing the medicare voucher plan. i think there could be some negotiation around reducing the cost of medicare. this is -- there is a real opportunity to do that. looking ate ok with entitlement programs on its face? guest: i think the affordable care at has shown us -- chairman ryan repeals in his budget and creates a further, huge deficits. the affordable care act has shown us how we can bend the cost curve by focusing on quality of service. if you have it loved one who has been in the hospital, when the nurse comes in to hang an iv,

she scans a bar code. if they put a band-aid on you, that is scanned. if you, and with cancer or with diabetes, you need to be treated like a whole person. host: our guest is representative gwen moore from wisconsin and of the budget committee. here is your chance to ask her questions. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans. i want to get your response. [video clip] >> we believe obamacare will be so unpopular in this country because of the broken promises.

americans are going to have a rude awakening. the president said if we pass it with lower cost, it has been going up. said he would do what out in the open. it has been a backroom deal. you'll see young people not wanting to go into the field of health care because of obamacare. we believe in the interest of health care for families and for making medicaid work better for low income better, we need to replace obamacare with a better system. host: representative moore? guest: i think chairman ryan is eloquent. i have to point out the oxymoron that he talks about. here we are to save medicare and

provide higher quality of medicare services by doing what? by providing a voucher? people go into the marketplace and they choose their health care. the only you have a choice if you had a substantial amount of money to subsidize the voucher. if you were a senior with $6,000 extra to apply to your voucher, maybe you could get decent health care coverage. if you are a middle class person, a person who has worked every day and paid your premium for medicare, you would find -- it is increasing

10%, 15% every decade. you'll find themselves falling further and further behind. that is to program that would give you the low was quality of care. two-tiered system. host: what questions are you going to bring to the chairman? guest: i will hold the chairman accountable for the statements that he made. he said he wants to balance the budget. he said it will be a growth budget. how do you grow a budget when you strip out all of the rail and infrastructure improvements?

how do you grow a budget with no research and development in the budget? how do we have our hegemony in the world with a budget that has stripped down everything in the way of innovation? how'd you enjoy the dividends by cutting everything else down? he said he wants to improve the safety net for people and that he wants to end the culture of dependency. he wants those lazy kids to get off of their dusty crusties and get themselves some form of a, or is he talking about the elderly? he said he doesn't want the safety net to become a hammock.

are we going to ask a woman in a nursing home who spent down all of her resources, she sold her house, find yourself still alive at 85 -- that is who is using medicaid, not some taker. our 18-year-old in college that need out grants -- pell grants. or the 50 million people that find themselves on food stamps because of the recession. these are the straw men i'm going to challenge him on. host: joe from ohio. guest: hi, joe. caller: good morning.

the republicans already pointed out the tax increase. most of us knew it would not make a dent in the deficit. now teatime to be fair and to compromise when we have already ponied up quite a bit. now it appears, now you want fairness. we already did give. when is it that you guys give? you wanted your tax increase it. the rich and you guiot let's be fair. what are you going to pony up? guest: i think you last an important question.

we got about $600 billion, not as much as i wanted from the fiscal cliff deal. we have cut $2.5 trillion in spending. you do the math. $600 billion is a lot less than $2.5 trillion in spending. talk about a balanced approach. in terms of closing tax loopholes, i think there are a great many opportunities to do that. for example, the buffett rule. it is named after warren buffett who said, here i am a billionaire and my secretary pays less in taxes than i do. if you have net income over $2

million, you should have an effective tax rate of of least 30%. the ryan budget does not do anything about the oil and gas subsidies that we could close. it is important to put investment in areas where we need investments. one shift those to a new economy and building a good grid by creating jobs and incentivizing business. let's work with business and incentivizing these companies to create jobs and opportunities for folks. i do get your point that you ponied up $600 billion and that is a sacrifice of the 1% of our country. there have been $2.5 trillion

taken out of the economy. looked at chairman bernanke. when a policy option is not equal to another. if we cut unemployment insurance as a way of cutting the budget, that has a deleterious impact on our income verses taking a few more dollars from the wealthiest people. host: alice from brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you. do not hang up. i want to be able to say -- paul ryan sounded like he was running for vice president. he lost.

he is a congressman. why haven't these republicans who each time seem to think this is so outrageous why we should have health care. let them give up their health care. let them give up their dental that nobody has. he used to be a time when congress fought for whenever they got. people in the rest of america also got and what happens is it is lopsided. i think congress especially the republican women who voted against women getting equal pay yet they get equal pay. guest: thank you for your call. chairman ryan has stated that just because he lost as vice

president does not mean he will give up on his principles. that is his explanation for why he is introducing the same legislation. he is holding on to his principles. we are spending too much money. somehow the economy will grow from cutting. you do not say i'm going to pay my mortgage off today instead of the 30-year arrangement that i have, and in the meantime we eat for the- won't next 30 years. that is nonsensical. responsible economists have said that. with regard to health care, 70%

of the cuts that representative ryan makes in this budget on health care, and adult women are much more dependent on health care of them are men. women are much more likely to be dependent on their husbands for health care, more likely to live longer and need medicaid so they can have a end of the life experience that is of some quality, and you are absolutely right. it is just attacking health care. it attacks where women are most vulnerable. host: dennis, wyoming, independent line. caller: hello. guest: hi, dennis. caller: retired military, 64 years old and retired, starting

to enjoy my life. i got a letter the other day that says that due to budget cuts, mike tricare prime is going to be dropped and if i did not live within 40 miles of a military base, i would not have medical care. it is six times more than i presently pay as the cost for health insurance. i spent years serving my country, putting my life on the line, and now i am being kicked out of a federal medical service that was not a written guarantee, but a verbal guarantee, when i joined the military. i'm looking at you folks in congress. put everybody under the affordable health her act, make it equal and make it fair for everyone. your service is in d.c., which could be a war zone, but is now

more because of what me and my fellow veterans did for this country and now being thrown aside. guest: dennis, thank you for your service. one of the things most shocking to me when i started building in the budget was that the department of defense affairs -- department of veterans affairs and defense budget works separate. it is fine and good to add billions more dollars to the weapons of war and war theater, but once you serve, we have just sort of done with you and you live with the consequences of your healthcare coverage for your disability that you develop. this is a major flaw in how we put forth a policy.

people don't realize that when they hear we are cutting defense spending, that we are cutting veterans' care. we are not. i'm glad you raised the point this morning. host: "the wall street journal" -- "$100 billion less than over 10 years it would spend at least $2.30 trillion less on defense and then he and mr. romney advocate." guest: he is claiming the same peace dividend that the president has. that is one of the things that is wrong with his budget. on one hand, he claims the savings that the president is enjoying, and then claiming that he is reducing the deficit.

host: chris in of rochester hills, michigan. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am a highly dem -- no, definitely not a democrat. i'm heavily republican. i have a problem with the democrats. i live in michigan, heavily unionized, unfortunately, state. thank god we became a right to work state. when you made the statement that says we have $600 billion in taxes and you wanted a lot more, first of all, you guys have a spending problem which you guys don't admit. the president of the united states is a unionized person, and you guys talk about special interests. he always helps out the union's.

like when you say "education," before you reform education, all that money goes to the union teachers. the teachers' union ruined the public schools. my daughter -- i am not wealthy by any means, but my daughter goes to a private school because the unions ever went -- unionsh ave ruined, especially in my state, and you guys have a spending problem and all you guys want to do is tax and spend and you have so many duplicate programs that you could eliminate that overlap. i heard senator tom coburn said that there was -- there is so much waste, some which duplicates programs and departments that you can cut. host: ok. guest: well, thank you. i think that unionization has

really created the middle-class , and not only for members of unions, but people not in the unions have been able to benefit from that. i am right across the lake from michigan, where the civil service was born. when the union negotiated things like the minimum wage, 40-hour workweeks, that spilled out into the private sector. when we ended child labor, these were all the accomplishments of the union movement guest: what we are experiencing now is greater and greater and greater income inequality because we are losing union membership. we are down to 6% of households with union membership. that gives opportunities for companies to get greater and

greater profits, and they don't plowed back into the quality of life of people. and it hurts the overall economy. 2/3 of our economies consumer spending. you live in michigan -- i don't know if he said you live near the car industry or anything. he could become wealthy as a car industrialist ... employees could buy a car -- unless his employees could buy a car. if you don't pay people the minimum wage at how will share in the growth, the economy won't grow. you talk about waste, fraud, and abuse, and i agree with you about that. of course, the sequester is no way to do it, taking hatchet to the budget without looking at ways we could trim the budget and eliminate duplicative

programs. but thank you for your question. host: the president meets with you on thursday. what do you think of the meanings and the way he has been meeting with republicans when it comes to budget and spending issues? guest: when he doesn't meet with people, he is accused of being distant and aloof. when he does meet with us, then he is caving. i know that people in my party become very paranoid and upset -- "oh, he is meeting with those terrible republicans." host: we heard from democrats who said they were concerned about entitlement spending already. guest: exactly. i certainly will be in attendance on thursday. it is always a pleasure and privilege to at least be heard, and people want to be heard.

whenever these decisions are made, people can go back to their constituents and say, i did or did not get what you want it, but at least i was heard. host: up until that point, has he taken leadership on this issue? guest: yes, i think he has taken tremendous leadership. there are people who do not want to give the president credit, because there are none so blind as people who will not see. when he was offering up the chained cpi, which is very controversial, as you know, in both the senate and house democratic caucuses -- host: that goes back to concerns of some democrats as to what he is going to give when it comes to entitlements and things like that. guest: exactly. there are many areas of entitlements that can be changed. i referred to medicare, and that

seems to be the main focus of the paul ryan budget. i think medicare, reshaping the expectations of that -- he even calls it medicare exchange. it seems like we can pull paul below the closer to what we are thinking with medicare for all. there are tremendous opportunities to craft something. on whetherends or not people are going to be dug in. i think the republicans needed to do a little more coming than we do. our democracy was not designed for the minority to be elected brat be like a petulant and to rave and rant if they don't have their way. the republicans are trying to run the clock out on the

president's turn. -- term. you do three votes a day -- one is approving the journal, the other is a motion to adjourn, and another on congratulate a basketball team or something. we are going to run out of post offices to name before we destroyed the postal service. host: indiana, this is william. go ahead. caller: i was just commenting on the baseline budget numbers you give. people truly do not understand that. further than that, when the president -- if you seriously look at him, it is hard to define him sometimes, but i do think he feels like it is a socialist type of future he sees for the country. bailouts good unions, obamacar -- bailouts to go to unions,

obamacare destroying the -- people are afraid to hire, especially young people, is touting of green energy. so useless in many ways. and finally, no refusal on tax reform. it is just disheartening. i am 62, i have worked for the government. i know that you can have the kind of health care that you can buy it across state lines, tort reform, a serious ways of looking at things. as opposed to socializing everything. guest: well, william, you know, i will be 62 this year as well. we are baby boomers. there are 10,000 of us today who are turning 65. these proposals that representative ryan is making will have an impact on us. the medicaid budget, block granting and -- that means that

30 million people will not be able to avail themselves of medicaid. i don't know what your financial situation is, william, but should you be unfortunate enough in this case to live for 20 more years and you become frail and elderly at 82 and need a home called assistant to come in, medicaid may not be there for you. if you drop it off into savings or we had major changes to social security, where you're in, deteriorates every month, or you are working for the federal government, the proposal next $90 billion out of the federal government retention programs. i don't know what your financial situation is. i know that we are both boomers. you don't want socialism, but i don't want you to live in austere poverty. host: last call, wisconsin --

guest: hi! host: republican line. guest: wisconsin. hi. caller: ms. moore, i had a question and comment. you brought up the $2.30 trillion that the president is saving, and i heard this comment from you and other democrats, and i am not ripping on democrats, but isn't it $2.30 trillion over 10 years of post- spending, that baseline spending? guest: actually, $2.70 trillion. there have been actual cuts that have been made in these programs. the budget we are looking at right now, all of them are proposals, but we made a fiscal cliff deal, in the budget control act, those were actual cuts.

here we are at the table again saying that the only thing we can do now is to cut more and more spending. you look at people like ben bernanke, who i mentioned earlier, and you might accuse me of being a wild eyed liberal, but you cannot say he is. austerity is something we ought to be concerned about. we have to reduce our deficit, i agree with that, but we have to make plans for that and do it in strategic ways that do not impair our ability to be innovative, and do not impair our ability to meet basic needs to the elderly and the very, very young and vulnerable and to our young people, we need to make sure the that they are able to keep pace with technological innovation. host: west virginia, democrats' line. tim, hello.

guest: hi, tim. caller: good morning, c-span2 good morning, mrs. moore. guest: hi, tim. caller: i want everybody to work together and deal with the senate and house committee. there is americans all across the nation -- i live in poverty. i am from by chicago. i was in indiana. i worked for manufacturing, a work all across the united states. the thing is there is too many suits and ties walking around. obama has a vision for this nation. and i'm a white guy. i have been in the hood, so to speak. deals with the budget committee, and you being a person on the budget committee -- we need to cut the frivolous spending,

where the lobbyists just go ahead and do what they want to do and just keep blowing money. guest: well, you know, tim, thank you for your call. the overall, it is sort of amen with regard to your comments. we all do want to work together it is embarrassing to be a member of congress and you are with intelligent people and most of us have experience working in the world and many of us have advanced degrees and specialties. we have even got a rocket scientist in congress. it would seem to me that we ought to be able to come to some agreement. i think that the thing is the most egregious to me is to see people just obstructing. it reminds me of my kids. people just having oppositional dispositions. you say one thing and they do

the other just to be oppositional. we have that problem here. we have people who have been elected to congress who think that their whole purpose for coming here is to destroy government. they don't see the proper role for government, they don't think it is to make sure we have clean air, clean water, they don't think government should be involved in helping produce the next generation of innovation. i want people to remember that the internet was created by federal funding. the building of highways and the interstate highways and the roads and the air continental rail, all of this was done because of the cooperation of government with the private sector. it is -- but there are people who are greedy, quite frankly, who say, hey, i can save -- i can get billions of dollars in profits if i were allowed to

pollute the air and blow it this river that flows right into the next village -- and a polo to this river that flows right into the next village or town and i do not have to listen to this epa telling me what to do. i just have to follow certain safety guidelines. i can get away with making millions more. i think that government has an up proper role in protecting all of us, not just by sending our boys and girls to war, but protecting us from greed and avarice. host: i want to get your response to the head of the congressional black congress did she send a letter to the president over concerns about african-americans being parts of his cabinet. what you make of the letter, first and foremost? guest: as chair of the congressional black caucus,

marcia fudge has the right to way and with her thoughts. -- weigh in with her thoughts. there are many qualified african americans out there, and the president would be well advised to vet them. it is always important to me to have a diverse staff. diversity does give you greater policy options, and different opinions, but you want the most qualified and experienced people to be in your shop. i would err on the side of allowing the president to go through that process and make sure he has people who are in the best position to serve him. host: we have been joined by representative gwen moore, a member of the budget committee, who will sit down with other members of the committee -- guest: until midnight tonight. it is starting at 10:30, and we

will be there until may be right before midnight. host: watch it on c-span as well. representative moore, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we look at canada, particularly prime minister stephen harper, and why americans should take notice. that discussion when we return. >> when it comes to the secretary of state and the people around her, what i found striking was her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on what is happening. she doesn't get distracted by the details of they are not important. details of the matter, but she has the ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in

afghanistan in packing what they might be doing in the middle east? how is it what is happening in the middle east impacting what they might do in asia. she has a good sense of the big picture and the strategy. she is surrounded by good people helping her. i have to carry my aunt's suitcase, which she has staff, and that allows her to stay focused on what really matters. you don't have to worry about whether of lunch is going to be served or not, it will just arrive, and she will have it while thinking about the bigger picture. hattas bbc's kim g looks at hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state on "after words." >> dolley madison offers on models that emphasizes stability and stability. with the to our founding generations because we need

these -- we look to our founding generations because we needed these role models. it is a model she has bequeathed us and what we can use for the future. >> our conversations on dolley madison are available on our website, c-span.org/firstladies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now from new york, and jay nordlinger, senior editor for "national review," author of an article on stephen harper, canada's conservative prime minister. guest: banks for having me. this sounds pretty grand. host: you chose to highlight the prime minister of canada for

your cover story b. why stephen harper? guiltyi'm a little bit of ignoring canada. i've lived in michigan so i am practically canadian. stephen harper has been in office for a long time. he was elected in 2006. but he is still unknown to a great many of us, so i wanted to write him up. he has an interesting fellow who has done interesting things in canada. host: you open up the piece by talking about the upcoming cpac meeting in washington. he had been invited by cpac to come to the meeting. he declined. this is one of a couple of stories that have surfaced about who is coming to cpac. why is that important, in your

opinion? guest: is new, reason, it was a hoax, and that is why i started -- it was a hook, and that is why i. it started off with pay and some canadian conservatives are squeamish about this is sitting with an american out ervative like -- abaou associating with an american conservative like me. cpac invited a number of conservative and heads of state or government. one was harper, another was benjamin netanyahu. neither is attending cpac. they have other things to do. there is cameron in britain, some one count sin -- some would count singh in india.

but there are not a great many at the moment. host: so how is harper conservative and how does that compare to conservatism in the united states? guest: he is about as conservative as canadian gets. he is a reaganite, thatcherite. he was a great admirer of women's buckley, founder of "national were -- great admirer of william f. buckley, founder of "national review." he heads a left-of-center environment, that is getting less so at the time. he is awaiting canadian conservative instincts . he is painting regions of canada blue. they do their colors differently.

we call our that state's blue leaning and re -- left states blue leaning and right states red leaning. they do the opposite. host: how did members of parliament respond to him when he was chosen prime minister and how do they respond to him today? guest: he began with a minority governmen andt -- government paid they have a preliminary director's seat there. -- parliamentary system there. it is a bit murky to congressional guys like us. but they had a majority government starting in 2011, the first conservative majority government in some time. he is doing some bold things.

"forbes" magazine rated canada at the most favorable environment for business of all the g8 countries. behind such juggernauts as singapore. that is pretty impressive. that is something fairly new for canada. a lot of us used to thinking of it as a trudeaupian state. they are also different in the foreign realm. he is a staunch, takes a strong line against iran. the canadians close to their embassy in tehran recently. they were worried it would be sacked. canada was denied a seat at the security council. quite strange, canada has been pro-un.

harper is quite pro-israel. this is why he got my attention. he is a different kind of canadian leader. harper is something new under the sun. here in the united states he would be considered a moderate host: you can ask him questions about it. if you want to give them a call , here are the numbers -- host: we have set a line of side for our canadian viewers. if you want to give your firsthand experience of mr. harper, you can call -- host: has mr. harper come to

america and had a chance to meet with the president? guest: yes. i discussed with some people close to the situation, the relationship tween harper and obama. i am told it is cordial. this is like the many issues between the united states and canada. the stickiest is the keystone pipeline. i am sure you have had a lot on your show about that. is the pipeline that would run through alberta down into the united states read the president has not okayed that yet. it is a contentious issue. host: mr. harper's take on the keystone pipeline? guest: he is all for it. it will be good for canadians and americans. he thinks it is safe and durable. it will give better and cheaper energy, provide employment.

if america does not take it, the chinese and others will. host: can you give us a sense of his rise to power, what he did before and qualities he brings to the table as prime minister? guest: sure. he is an in thought -- intellectual, and economist. the conservatives were badly splintered. harper led the effort to unite them and get them back on their feet. finally, the liberals in 2006, the liberals -- conrad black pointed this out to me. the liberals have been the most dominant party for a long time. in 1896, they were in power for 80 out of 110 years. that is a lot. he broke the ice, so to speak. he is a low-key, pragmatic,

canny guy. he is said to be without charisma. we have had that and our campaigns over the years. he is very low-key. some people think boring. he is routinely compared to an accountant. it is a good thing to be unaccounted, especially a good one. he gets things done. he has not just a pragmatic -- he is full of practice. he has high ideals and very strong principles. he is a sharp understanding of what is possible. people in canada were shocked a few years ago when he took the stage at a concert to sing a beatles song. he sang i get by with a little help from my friends. he let his hair down. i watched a video of that on youtube. he is a buttoned down and subdued and charming.

he disarm his opponents. go to youtube and see debate -- in the debate. you will see his opponents, the leaders of the left arty flailing away in particular politician style. he is apt to respond in a very patient, matter of fact way. i believe he is quite effective. as you can tell, i am a fan. it may be easier to be a fan from abroad than close at home. host: oakland, juju -- new jersey. a profile piece done on stephen harper. tony, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am curious as to -- host: keep going. go ahead. curiosity killed the cat.

queen elizabeth, head of the government -- stephen harper. how would you rate mr. harper's relationship with his cabinet? guest: they are a team of friends. allies and comrades, people who are in this together. he is a very intelligent man, as harper himself is. it is interesting that you pointed out that the queen is canadian and head of state. harper likes to point this out, also. that has not been said in a long time, i gather. he did something controversial, he restored the old names to the military services. we now have the royal air force

and royal canadian navy. a lot of veterans wanted it. he wanted to remind people of the canadian past. that includes a proud military history. some of these things are symbolic, as you see. for example, when he first entered office, he reversed the policy of lowering flags every time there was a casualty or death in afghanistan. his view was, we have remembrance day for that and casualties are a part of war. that was just symbolic. as i say in this piece, it lets people know there was a new sheriff in town. he emphasizes anglo-american civilization. there is a french province in québec. they are part of the french world as well. they are very a much part of anglo-american civilization. he stressed this, the english language, common law, by jury,

free economy, property rights and so on. another indication there is a new sheriff in town. host: silver city, new mexico. go ahead. caller: i just wonder what your thoughts are about the fact about national healthcare. that is a basis of a lot of help for a lot of people. where does he stand on that? guest: in canada, you must support national healthcare, the same what you must support motherhood and apple pie in the united states read it as part of the fabric. as of now, national healthcare is untouchable and privatization is unthinkable politically. a lot of people want a less rigid system, more choices for both doctors and patients. harper has not moved on that. he has other fish to fry. as i said, he is a pragmatic

fellow. i get lots of opinions from canadians on canadian health care. what i hear most often is this, this seems to be a consensus among people i talk to that when needs are minimal, rigler, routine, the system works very well. in a crunch, a lot of people who can afford it across the board to the south, less waiting and so on, there are certainly pluses and minuses. host: jay nordlinger talking with us. did you have a chance to talk with mr. harper himself? guest: i did not. he declined. i talked with people around him. i was a bit miffed, as any journalist would be. he said, no, thank you. he does relatively few interviews even to canadian publications. why should he give one to national review any work?

he's a very free -- in new york. he is a very carefree,. for him and for other politicians, when it is not necessary to speak, it is necessary not to speak. he is a very, very disciplined fellow. otherwise, he could not have remained on top for all these years. host: battle creek, michigan, democrat line. caller: maybe you can tell us -- i have been trying to follow the controversy. from what i am reading, it is exceedingly dirty. it is expensive to mine. it takes three barrels of water to get one barrel of this tar sand. i guess it is tar. it is kind of low quality, has lots of sulfur. it has heavy metals and it. it is toxic.

you have all these ponds of water. host: thanks. guest: i am sorry. you are out of my field. i can't pretend to answer widely. i get a lot of environmental opinion from various sources. that, i don't know about. so, forgive me. host: new jersey, democrat line. caller: hi. i just want to make a point about mr. harper. i think he is actually quite lucky, where he is at. i think he inherited a strong economy from the liberals. i also think the liberals also were quite responsible in not getting involved in iraq and getting canada involved in iraq. i also want to -- we talk about afghanistan, that is a continuation of policy that was established by paul martin. -- i't really think that

think you are overestimating him. i think he inherited a good situation. i think he is basically just maintained it. guest: i agree with some of what the caller says. canada was in dire straits in the 1990's. they were a basket case, a laughingstock economically. liberals came to grips with the problem. they did it very hard things, took hard steps to take. they got finances under control, started reducing the government. harper has continued that. that is quite right. he is than other things. the lowest tax burden since 1960. corporate tax is 15%, the federal corporate tax. that is pretty good. that is what makes canada so attractive for business all over the world. the caller is right, the

economic reforms began under the liberal party. it is true. they sobered up, much more than we have done here in the united states. host: you write in your piece that the canadians had an election in october 2008. nine months after the election, they won again by a bigger margin. when you expand on that -- guest: yes. he keeps painting regions of blue, the conservative color. people have begun up there to trust the conservatives with power. the liberal lock on the country has been broken, for now. liberals are not even the official -- official position. that is another left party. harper is a incremental list. quality, buter's

he does not move the public farther than they are willing to go. he likes to -- i think the way he would put it is, they only can the common sense gene in the canadian people. they are a part of anglo- american said -- civilization. this was the liberal party vision. harper remembers a different heritage for canada. he stresses canada's heritage of freedom. the government has put out a video emphasizing this. they have all sorts of canadians quoting lines, a conservative prime minister back in the time of eisenhower and canadian. i have the right to select my own government and to say what i think is right. criticize what i think is wrong and so on. harper and his people emphasized this heritage of freedom, part of the q&a -- canadian mix.

i remember that year -- asked fidel castro to be a pallbearer at his funeral. that is when they had their semi famous talk that led to a visit by carter to cuba. that is pretty far field. i am sorry for that wandering. host: republican line. caller: hi. i was just yesterday talking -- to a friend in ontario, a chartered accountant. we are dual citizens. we can live in canada and the u.s. after getting our income tax back, we are thinking about returning to canada. the tax rates are fairly equal now. canada does not have the debt. they are sitting on a pile of natural resources. i am just wondering what your

guest thinks the future of canada is going to be like. guest: well, i will say this. the federal picture is rather reaganite with lower taxes and fewer taxes and less regulation and so on. a lot depends on what province you're in. some provinces are more blue in canadian terms or american terms, and more red. for example, coal ash q and ontario have their different policies. it sounds like i am talking asia, but in the far east of canada, are different. they are liberalizing, in the old sense, so it does depends on where you live. the trends are right or toward an old kind of liberalism,

smaller government, greater personal freedom, more latitude for enterprise and so on. this is a separate realm, a much staunch oer foreign-policy. it got my attention when it a vote -- the czech republic, canada, israel and a handful of other nations. that was another thing that harper did that got my attention. not very popular with canada's hermit foreign-policy establishment. host: toronto is next on the republican line. caller: yes. i don't think the prime minister is doing a good job. he took his country in a very financial good standing and he

puts the country into great deficit now. one of the things as regarded to the epa, he withdraw from the agreement on which i think this is bad. now, the keystone pipeline, which he tried to get across the united states, i don't think it is a good idea. that oil is very polluted. economically, it is shocking that it is not really feasible. they doing it, but it is not right. they're using two to get one. host: canada has a 7.3% unemployment rate, spending at

47 -- 747 billion. caller: after the recession of 2008 and 2009, there was spending in canada. canada came out of that recession and has emerged in a stronger position. there is a deficit there. they expected to be gone by 2015. that should be fairly easy to economist, as i understand it. it is quite true that the harper government withdrew from the kyoto protocol. they believe the previous government entered into that protocol, joined it cynically, with no intention of following through. the opinion of the conservative government, the kyoto recall

was bad for canada, not good for energy and there ought to be a better deal. i considered that bold and smart. plenty of others -- as for the keystone pipeline, i am certainly not an expert. we pick our experts and authorities. we should listen to a range of opinions and decide what sounds the most authoritative and most wise to us. i believe the keystone pipeline is something the united states should accept with gratitude a long time ago. host: independent line, you're up next. caller: thank you very much. thank you, c-span, for all you do. the question -- host: i have to say ditto to that. caller: it sounds like there might be parallels to harper and reagan, if you could touch on that. also, if he could be a model or

mentor for some of the people in washington, d.c. and here in the white house, to bring some of the old conversation to issues we're facing in this country. guest: on the reagan issue, you could strain this analogy, as he could about any knowledge it, i guess. harper did leave conservatives -- lead conservatives out of the wilderness in political power in canada. you could say the same of reagan here in the united states. has harper gone as far as reagan? here was part of the reagan achievement. sometimes i remind people of this and they remind me. he succeeded -- in slowing the rate of government. of course, the government grew bigger in his time. his achievement the mystically -- domestically was to slow the rate of growth.

that was about the best he could manage. harper, i think, is doing all he can in that direction. i think that's as i said earlier, he is governing in a classical fashion as possible right now. sorry for stumbling over that. i hope you get what i mean. i was picking up the next question which had to do with what american politicians can learn from harper. part of it is his style, which is personal and individual to everyone. style, flavor, feeling. he is a very low-key guy. her member this great word in american politics, non- threatening. he is a non-threatening conservative area and does not make those who disagree with him break out in hives. although the press can be pretty hostile against him. i think he uses this style.

i don't think this is conscious or captivating. it it -- has helped him in governing. he does not scare the horses too much read he is a pretty mild mannered fellow. the response to him is not necessarily inflamed. i think a good bit of this is personal. about politics is the art of the possible, harper understands this. what some great politicians do is expand the notion of possibility. maybe people are willing to go the direction they did not think they wanted to go in. from my advantage -- which is not a good vantage in new york, looking up at canada, harper is doing just about as much as he can in order to -- for conservative ideals and canada.

there are conservatives who think you could be bolder and doing more. it is a matter of how you -- harper is taking it rather slowly. maybe he things he is doing it as fast as possible. host: west virginia, hello. caller: hello. i am watching tv. host: go ahead with your statement or comments. caller: the prime minister has gone in with a little over 30% of the votes. based on the liberals, they were not able to get the majority, so he squeaked in. it is a different system than in the u.s., where you have a president with a majority but he has problems with the house. in harper's case, he has got this huge advantage because he

needs to push through these big bills without any resistance against nobody can vote them down. that's my point, really. guest: he is in a privileged position, yes. he is in a majority government. the government pretty much gets its way. as i understand it in parliament. there are many who would in be that, that is for sure. it has been a long time coming for conservatives. these politicians are held accountable at regular intervals. they missing a regular to us. here in america, our system is so stately and predictable, president election every four years, senatorial elections, there are elections are staggered. all are very predictable. they are different in these elementary countries. -- parliament countries. i think it is near -- neat and

clear and orderly. there is something exciting about following reporting on the systems with democracies in the parliament. there are all sorts of shifting and tactics that we would not necessarily have here. to me -- i'm not sure that canada is described as entertaining -- i find parliamentary politics white entertaining. i also think that the question -- in which a prime minister has to take questions from the opposition in parliament, that, to my mind -- maybe i'm a bit of a nerd about this -- that is very good television. host: a statement from mary -- host: brian, republican line.

caller: thanks. here in michigan, sure do love windsor. as i looked out at the great lakes, i realized the boundary is only 50 miles away, which is awesome. we share a lot of things. being in the navy, you have to admit that you do have a big, strong, kind of an ugly brother as far as defense goes. you don't have to spend a whole lot of money. you know deep down -- it is not talked about too much. know what is to mess with canada. we would not allow any outside force to mess with mexico either. you do rely on it. i worked with your -- you have beautiful ships and you have helped out and we appreciate that, even in the middle east. guest: first of all, i am an

american. i am from michigan and i have written this piece about canada. canada has made major contributions, certainly an international conflicts and to world wars in korea. canadian has been very effective and brave. canada has massively increased defense spending. harper says it is -- canada is making a meaningful contribution to the world. at the same time, the caller is quite right. the united states is a colossus and a lot of people depend on america, not just on the continent. in europe and other places as well. that has been true for a very long time, certainly since the second or. -- war.

whether it will remain true is now in question. i would like to get a member from michigan -- years ago, i was hanging around there. that is my home state. i worked at golf courses. we had a lot of canadian players. once in a while, they tried to use their canadian money, this pretty canadian money. it looked like lay money -- lay -- play money. we would laugh at them. the whole idea was ludicrous. who is laughing now? the last i checked, the canadian dollar is worth more than the u.s. by here, basically even. that was a very sobering. it indicated a flip in positions. i noted this to a canadian intellectual and politico when i was preparing my piece on harper. he said, yes, that is a source of pride that our dollar is

equal points are worth more than the american dollar. it hurts our exports. in a matter of currency policy and currency affairs, every shot pleases some money. host: we are about to go to the house of representatives. democrat line. caller: good morning. i was able to visit toronto when i was in michigan. it is people up there. what i understand is that americans are not allowed to move to canada. they stop was at the border and they don't want us. i resent that. the other thing, they should build their own refinery in alberta, canada, it is not good for us and does not create jobs. it will pollute our world. could you comment on not come -- allowing americans in? guest: we're just about to wrap up so go ahead. guest: that, i don't know about